I hope your wife is soon better Uke.
Today I did Entrecote steak with baked potatoes, ratatouille, carrot and green beans.
My wife had Cancoillotte with her baked potato instead of steak. That is a French runny garlic cheese which she brings back when we visit France. I have never seen it here.
https://president.uk.com/french-cheese/cancoillotte#.XNYCM45KjIU

Sorry Jim, no recipe. I just did what my mum did , that is mash up some left over cooked potato with a fork and some fish mashed the same way, I think she used canned pilchards, but I could be wrong. I used left over mashed potato and some canned tuna in oil. My mum used to shape them by hand and cook them in the fat from her roast meats, but I used a hamburger mould and put breadcrumbs in the bottom and an top, and fried them in Olive oil. We were brought up in the war and there was severe rationing. One fo the things you couldn't get was olive oil except from a pharmacist in small bottles of about two tablespoons.
Add any seasoning to taste.

Easter is still not passover. The resurection was in the evening as the Sabbath was approaching.
Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
The women got to the tomb when it was dark.
John 20:1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
So your resurrection morning quote is not correct.

We are not commanded to remember the days, but remember our Lord's death at the Loed's Supper, as often as you do it.. Christ is our passover, and it we should celebrate it we shoudl celebrate it at Passover.. Easter is not passover, it is a papal invention to get the church to celebrate the pagan spring festival.
This year passover begins this evening, next year it is a couple of days different in 2021 passover is nearly a week earlier than Easter.

Thank you I agree with that, but that doesn't address the point that before 1948 the land was called Palestine. After 1917 when Allenby led his horse into Jerusalem the British ruled Palestine and Jordan, then called Trans Jordan. Before December 1917 the whole area was ruled by the Turks and the Sultan (aka The Sublime Porte) was also Sultan of Egypt.

I didn't intend to link the name to the current people. Before 1948 the Jews in the country were called Palestinians as they were living in a land called Palestine.
However I think there is something wrong with your reasoning. According to your reasoning, you are not Australian because you are (prbably) of European origim, or I am not English as thr original inhabitants were Britons, and so on. .

Before 1948 the land was called Palestine. The British mandate was over the land of Palestine, so Philip Mauro and others were correct in calling it that. I know that Philip was one of the early dispensationalists in New York, but later rejected it as "Dispensational Error."

Clarence Larkin who was described to me by a futurist on another board as a "Hyper Dispensationalist" wrote in the second chapter of his book Dispensational Truth, wrote
The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end th century of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "AntiTypes" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.
"Wonderfully revived in the 19th century and that among Protestants. from where? "This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it""
Where Larkin was wrong was that anything like it was taught in the early church. They taught an orderly historical progression.
1 the Roman Emperor would be removed. It was when Constantine moved tto Byzantium
2. The empire would be succeded by 10 kings. It was when the last western emperor abdicated in favour of the Goths Out of those 10 kingom came the papacy. Till the pope claimed supreme power in 610 no one had ruled in Rome since Constantine.The Western Empire reigned fom Milan and then Ravenna.

You should take your own advice, and give the souce of your allegations.
You could buy a copy of History of Apocalyptic Interpretaion, written in the early 1800's. . It covers fom the earliest timea to the French revolution. The author gives qoutes from the original writers and references for those quotes.. You can get it on Amazon.